RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01999
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her former husband’s records be corrected to show that he elected former
spouse coverage under the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP)
naming her as beneficiary.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since she was married to the servicemember for 27 years prior to their
divorce, she should be entitled to an annuity.
In support of her appeal, the applicant submits her personal statement and
a copy of the servicemember’s death certificate.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members
to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage
options as a spouse.
On 5 August 1987, the service member reached age 60 and began receiving
Reserve retired pay, in the grade of chief master sergeant. He was not
married at the time, and declined RCSBP coverage.
During the one-year open enrollment periods authorized by PLs 101-189 and
105-261, retirees were permitted to elect former spouse coverage during the
periods 1 April 1992 through 31 March 1993 and 1 March 1999 through 29
February 2000, respectively.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Retiree Services Branch, AFPC/DPPTR, recommends the application
be denied and states, in part, that while the applicant may have been
married to the servicemember for 27 years, duration is not legal grounds
for authorizing SBP eligibility. In this regard, AFPC/DPPTR notes that SBP
is similar to commercial life insurance in that an individual must elect to
participate and pay the associated premiums in order to have coverage. The
member could have elected former spouse SBP coverage on the applicant’s
behalf when he applied for commencement of his retired pay, but failed to
do so. Records indicate that both the 1992 to 1993 and 1999 to 2000 open
enrollment packets were mailed to the correspondence address the member had
provided to the Defense Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS), but there is
no evidence he returned an election on the applicant’s behalf during either
period.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9
August 2002 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief
should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The office of primary
responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we
agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she
has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01999 in
Executive Session on 21 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Member's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPTR, dated 30 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03158
The applicant and the member divorced on 3 February 1983. Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage options as a spouse. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that SBP was set up to protect the spouse and this is why a spouse’s signature is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03158
The applicant and the member divorced on 3 February 1983. Effective 1 March 1986, Public Law (PL) 99-145 permitted retiring members to select SBP coverage for a former spouse with the same cost as coverage options as a spouse. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that SBP was set up to protect the spouse and this is why a spouse’s signature is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states Public Law (PL) 99-145, established on 8 November 1985, required as of 1 March 1986 spousal concurrence of the SBP election, if the election was providing less than maximum spouse coverage. According to the Defense Finance and Service - Cleveland Center (DAFS- CL) the servicemember elected full spouse and child coverage under SBP, but later submitted a corrected election to decline SBP...
They stated the laws controlling the SBP preclude a married member, who declined spouse coverage at the time of retirement, from providing SBP former spouse coverage following divorce unless Congress authorizes an open enrollment. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00038
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 September 1972, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. There were no provisions in the laws during either of these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify a spouse if the member did not enroll. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their...
Public Law (PL) 92-425, which established the SBP on 21 September 1972, authorized an 18-month enrollment period for retired members to elect SBP coverage. There were no provisions in the laws during either of these open enrollment periods requiring the Services to notify a spouse if the member did not enroll. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their...
Even though the applicant and the decedent were married at the time of his retirement (1 Apr 91), records indicate that the applicant’s valid concurrence in the decedent’s SBP election was obtained prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the decedent was eligible to provide coverage for the applicant during two SBP open enrollment periods authorized by Public Laws (PLs) 101-189 and 105-126 (1 Apr 92 – 31 Mar 93 and 1 Mar 99 – 29 Feb 00, respectively). We took notice of the applicant's...
At that time, RCSBP coverage and premiums were suspended. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR states that SBP spouse coverage is suspended when the spouse loses eligibility. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01398
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPTR indicates that the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) was established by Public Law (PL) 92-425 on 21 September 1972, authorizing a one-year open enrollment period for servicemembers to elect coverage. However, if the Board recommends granting the request, the servicemember’s record should be corrected to show the servicemember elected SBP spouse only coverage based on full retired pay effective 21...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force stated that the applicant was married and elected child only SBP coverage based on full retired pay prior to his 12 May 83 disability retirement. If a member withdraws under this provision, there is no immediate refund of premiums; however, applicable spouse premiums paid by the member can be refunded to the spouse following the member’s death. ...